TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Psy-Kosh Archive

View 0 posts and 50 comments by Psy-Kosh on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Yeah, fair enough except it sneaks in connotations, etc. I'd say if wanting to just use a term to mean something like "a system of rigid gender roles" in the study... then don't bother trying to compress that into one word, just use that phrase.
/r/MensRights19/03/15 08:40 PM
1

If you had defined 'patriarchy' as: "A system of rigid genderroles" that would've worked for feminist and MRAs and would've let to better results for us MRAs I think. I'd have a problem calling that "patriarchy" then. Think of it this way: How would you feel about defining the word "matriarchy" as "a system of rigid gender roles"?
/r/MensRights19/03/15 08:20 PM
3

I dearly hope you pass that (uncensored) on to the admins. Especially given intent of ban evasion, etc.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 02:57 AM
1

Ah, yeah, that looks good then. IANAL, but that looks fairly solid and reasonable to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/14 08:22 AM
1

What about forced envelopment/forced-to-penetrate? ie, woman forces man to have sex with her. Is that rape? Under the bit you quoted, it's not, since the man isn't being penetrated, but is being enveloped/forced-to-penetrate. (Or is that included in the other provisions?) To truly be gender neutral, it has to include that case.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/14 04:46 AM
2

I don't think Theseusperse was arguing that it rendered them immune from criticism. Explanation and justification are two different things. Theseusperse was, near as I can tell, simply providing a possible explanation for the observed behavior, not claiming that it is a justification.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 10:01 PM
1

Don't take this the wrong way, but... what you're saying does sound suspicious. It seems like a way to make an accusation while making an excuse for not presenting any evidence or explanation whatsoever. How about, say, PMing all of us that're asking about this then? If you say you can't post it here, PM me and others with whatever it is you're actually saying?
/r/MensRights24/07/13 06:33 AM
5

I don't think fia_bui was shilling so much as simply saying something like "yeah, this does look bad. The only possibilities I can even imagine for this not being what it looks like are..."
/r/MensRights16/07/13 03:43 PM
2

I see what you did there.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 01:51 PM
3

Yes. Why not? Why is it that adults can get some sort of legal protection if attacked, but kids in school, the teachers just say "I didn't see it, so it didn't happen. Sucks to be you" or dish out whatever uneven (or overly even, as in treating both the aggressor and victim the same) punishments, etc. Seems perfectly reasonable that if the situation can't be properly dealt with "in house", to simply introduce the bullies to the police.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 01:47 PM
2

Ah, thank you. So looks like the Oxford definition is really not that bad. It has the "typically by a man" bit, but it's not having rape defined that way.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 10:30 PM
3

Hrm... Interesting... Oxford's noun definition for it is rather more gender neutral than the verb one. The noun doesn't even have the "one doing the penetration is the perpetrator, one being penetrated is the victim" thing, but just fully generalizes as "coerced/non consensual intercourse", and simply dropped in a drive by "typically committed by a man" comment that doesn't modify the definition, while the verb has the "if a man" qualifier. I'm curious now about the inconsistency, how they ended…
/r/MensRights10/05/13 03:27 PM
2

Well, it gets into false rape claims, but does seem to be more a racism thing in that context, IIRC.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 02:55 AM
2

Uh... elaborate on how it would be?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 12:35 AM
6

Props for succeeding at the high level rationalist challenge of actually changing your mind. I congratulate you on this achievement. (note, while the tone is perhaps tongue in cheek, I am NOT being sarcastic. I intend this as a sincere complement.)
/r/MensRights08/04/13 01:02 PM
7

And note how it carefully defines the being-forced-to-penetrate as non rape. Making men not get raped as often by simply writing the dictionary. :p
/r/MensRights08/04/13 12:50 PM
21

Are you basing that on statistics that actually includes "males being forced to penetrate"/"coerced envelopment"/etc as instances of rape, or are those stats coming from studies which simply defined rape in such a way that it only counts of the one being penetrated is the victim?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 10:33 AM
18

Yeah. And it's exactly as legit as having a "men and children homeless shelter, all women are turned away to prevent the women from committing rape"
/r/MensRights08/04/13 09:51 AM
16

What legit reason could there be for denying males that wouldn't just as equally be legit for denying females?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 09:08 AM
1

That would also be a version of the sort of thing. But yeah, you get the idea of what I meant.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 11:20 PM
2

But using that other word would allow for it to be treated as a "lesser crime" ("sure, it was a sexual crime, but it wasn't actual rape", etc...) Let rape actually mean something to the effect of coerced sex, regardless of who's doing the penetration/envelopment, and to those who're shocked, let their faces be rubbed in the data. If separate terms were used, that would directly play into their prejudices.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 10:38 AM
5

It's not conflating. They are the same kind of thing in all the important ways. Separating them into different terms would be like, say, reserving the word "murder" exclusively for the case when a gun was used, while if someone was stabbed to death, it'd be called something like "unlawful deliberate malicious termination of life, but not murder". See how stupid that seems? If there really is a need for research/etc purposes to distinguish between them to get more detailed data, then let the two …
/r/MensRights07/04/13 10:05 AM
3

The point is a different word is being used for each. So people can now put "rape" and "men being forced to penetrate" into different mental buckets even though they're the same kind of thing. By using separate terms, it encourages thinking about them as not-the-same-kind-of-thing.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 10:01 AM
3

Peoples of the internet: I put forward the CDC's response as a prime example of why arguing "by definition" is BAD.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 09:54 AM
4

Sure. Physiological response can happen regardless of will, plus, there's the additional possibility of finding someone physically attractive yet still not consent to sexual activity with. Have you never found someone physically attractive yet overall undesirable? Never been at all aroused by someone that, on balance, you really do not want?
/r/MensRights29/03/13 04:28 AM
2

More precisely, you are presumed innocent. Whether or not you are, in fact, innocent, is not controlled by the court.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 11:53 PM
14

A straw man argument is when you misrepresent your opponent's position, and then refute not your opponent's actual position or arguments but the "strawman" that you built up, then pretend that counts as defeating the opponent. In the context of MRA, it would be something like someone saying "And, of course, MRAs are clearly wrong since their position that women are fundamentally inferior to men in all ways can clearly be refuted by all this evidence here.." The strawman in this example would be …
/r/MensRights23/01/13 01:59 PM
2

"All right then. Should I work through my excessive sensitivity to violence by making a habit of kicking back then?"
/r/MensRights08/11/12 11:52 PM
3

Side note: Of course, if one's the sort of parent that hits your children, it's quite reasonable for the child to hit back. Parents that think it's okay to spank don't get to complain of the child takes up that habit.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 11:52 PM
5

Child abuse laws limit "parent privilege" That's how it should be. Parental rights should not be arbitrarily high, they should be limited.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 01:10 AM
7

I'm not saying one way or another, but I am curious if the Department of Justice runs episodes of Top Gear. Huh? (Sorry, I know this isn't the main point of your post, but I'm scratching my head over this bit. What's Top Gear got to do with anything?)
/r/MensRights11/03/12 05:47 PM
1

As a simple matter of rationality, the proper question one ought ask is instead something like "can we get a list of straight statistics that is relevant?"
/r/MensRights10/03/12 09:48 PM
5

I guess one could sort of say "welll.... the soldiers are also the ones doing the killing, so they're not exactly innocent victims in all of it..." But yeah, the quote is still ridiculous.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 03:12 PM
4

The problem is this: You go "my cause is so just that any means necessary to trick people to going along is okay", then the other guy does that too with their cause, etc etc etc, and ultimately no actual hope of rational discourse is possible on ANY subject, because everyone escalates their own pet cause to "so it's okay to lie about it." Better to have the rule of "don't fundamentally argue dishonestly about an issue under debate, especially if you want, ultimately, for people to actually know …
/r/MensRights28/01/12 04:36 PM
1

Though still, age difference matters too, 14 is probably pushing things too, etc... Aaanyways While I can sorta see what you're saying (I wouldn't say I necessarily agree, but I think I see where you're coming from), the law does have to be equal. The fact that she's getting off light while a man in the same position would generally not is, well, a Bad Thing (tm). And I agree that in many ways our culture needs to "lighten up" about sex. But the "surrounding culture" lightens up, I don't think t…
/r/MensRights14/11/11 05:40 PM
4

Regardless of the morality of ephebophilia, there is a key factor here of this being a teacher, someone in a position of power over the student in question. (Actually, that much of an age difference itself might be significant, but put on top of that that she's a teacher of the student? definitely bad.)
/r/MensRights14/11/11 05:23 PM
4

Yes, obviously it's an allegory. I think kn33ch41_'s point was along the lines of "can you actually demonstrate a hot coal is a more accurate analogy than, say, a sword?"
/r/MensRights23/07/11 02:33 AM
2

Just letting you know, something got cut off near the end, specifically "The people in power with penises actually have to share a positive fraternal identity with other men. I don't think they do. I think they" You think they... what?
/r/MensRights02/06/11 04:02 PM
4

Hrm... should it be three years later, or should the age be female-lifespan/male-lifespan * male-pensionable-age?
/r/MensRights18/05/11 03:47 PM
4

The real question is what it would mean if you were 97% female instead of 100% female. :) (sorry, just being a bit silly)
/r/MensRights24/03/11 12:02 AM
1

Let's be fair, the complainer in this case is clearly a troll and even explicitly asserted they're using a troll account. So I don't really see this counting as generally indicative of reddit's attitude, in this case.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 02:26 AM
1

Oh? Thanks for the info. How safe and would regular use of the steroid based ones be, though? ie, is it the sort of thing that's just as safe (as far as you know) as the female birth control pills, or are there bigger concerns, or...? Also, how does the reliability of that tech compare to the female birth control pills?
/r/MensRights25/02/11 05:26 PM
1

Thanks, though again, I'm not a bio/med person, so if I'm way off here, I hope someone corrects me.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 10:40 PM
1

Thanks. I figured some may find that particular phrasing amusing... But you see what I was getting at, of course.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 10:40 PM
21

Actually, my understanding about the lack of that so far is that it's due to technical/biological limitations. That is, from my uneducated understanding of the subject is this: Female birth control pills essentially hook into the hormonal clock controlling their monthly cycle and and such. Men apparently don't have as convenient hormonal APIs for this purpose since we're producing sperm pretty much constantly, there isn't a cycle/hormonal clock to be "hacked" in the first place. Hence male pills…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 04:40 PM
59

Let false rape accusation itself be considered a sex crime, with those guilty of it themselves having to go on a sex offender list, neighbors being informed when a false rape accuser moves in nearby, etc etc?
/r/MensRights25/01/11 09:41 PM
7

So, how many of the ones you experience in day to day life favor, say, more equality in divorce proceedings, favor women having to sign up for selective services (in the US), etc etc etc? The feminist movement had legitimate grievances, and in many places in the world (including some parts of the US) it's still an issue to various extents, but the Men's Rights side of things does have a legitimate point too regarding various issues.
/r/MensRights14/01/11 04:32 PM
3

Historically, isn't that how child abuse laws got started? I seem to remember hearing something about how in the old days a lawyer argued/noted that a child should have at least as much legal protection as, say, a horse. IANALOAH (IANAL Or A Historian), though
/r/MensRights06/01/11 04:39 PM
6

Huh. Maybe just some connection problems and it wasn't quite loading for you? Because I know I saw plenty of comments, and when I clicked show all comments, there were many many more. SOME comments seemed to have been removed, but there's tons and tons there, and they're not exactly being complementary to the author's position. So it's not as if anyone that disagreed with her was deleted. Until evidence otherwise, I'm going to guess the apparent vanishing of comments that you saw was just a tech…
/r/MensRights29/11/09 09:30 PM
7

Comments section is closed, but they're certainly not deleted.
/r/MensRights29/11/09 08:50 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter